DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

254/- (v) Disallowance of commission - Rs. 1,07,47,659/- 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) gave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and confirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues: (i) Additional disallowance

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2)(iii) only those investments yielding exempt income should be considered for the purpose of disallowance. The CIT(A) had not given any finding with regard to the plea of the assessee that the disallowance should be restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The contention of the assessee in this regard is two fold

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

254/-\n(v) Disallowance of commission\n- Rs.\n1,07,47,659/-\n3.\nAggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)\ngave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and\nconfirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the\nassessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

2) no disallowance of expenditure in the absence of the actual expenditure incurred by the company, (3) nexus between the exempt income and expenditure disallowed under section 14 A of the act needs to be established and the assessee has disallowed on its own , ₹ 6,996,212 which is computed on a rational basis and therefore the disallowance should

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

254/-\n(v) Disallowance of commission\n- Rs.\n1,07,47,659/-\n3.\nAggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)\ngave partial relief towards the disallowance made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D and\nconfirmed the other additions/disallowances made by the AO. Aggrieved the\nassessee is in appeal before us contending the following issues

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowance to a certain percentage of the total bogus purchase amount and in not upholding the addition of 100% of bogus purchase amount? viii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of La Medica

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

disallowance to a certain percentage of the total bogus purchase amount and in not upholding the addition of 100% of bogus purchase amount? viii) Whether in the light of the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of La Medica

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

INDIABULLAS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

2)(ii) of the Rules for adjudication afresh. Accordingly, the Assessee is directed to furnish the details/explanation of the break- up of the suo-motu disallowance of INR 92,05,638/- made by the Assessee in respect of administrative expenses. The Assessing Officer is directed adjudicate the issue afresh as per law after AYs 2018-19 & 2019-2020 granting

DCIT-2(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. YES BANK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

254 of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee in ground No. 2 that said direction of the Ld. CIT(A) sessee in ground No. 2 that said direction of the Ld. CIT(A) sessee in ground No. 2 that said direction of the Ld. CIT(A) is beyond the direction of the ITAT in the assessee

YES BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee he appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-2(2)(2), M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Discovery Of Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, India, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Yes Bank Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(2), 9Th Floor, Nehru Centre, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Discovery Of India, Dr. Ab Vs. Bhavan, Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Respondent

254 of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee in ground No. 2 that said direction of the Ld. CIT(A) sessee in ground No. 2 that said direction of the Ld. CIT(A) sessee in ground No. 2 that said direction of the Ld. CIT(A) is beyond the direction of the ITAT in the assessee